Ex Parte Joseph et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 22, 201613611998 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2016) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O.Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/611,998 09/12/2012 Kuriacose Joseph PD-211016 6164 141451 7590 12/23/2016 AT&T Legal Dept. - [HDP] Attention: Patent Docketing, Room 2A-207 One AT&T Way Bedminster, NJ 07921 EXAMINER RAMAN, US HA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2424 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/23/2016 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KURIACOSE JOSEPH and SEAN S. LEE Appeal 2016-001738 Application 13/611,998 Technology Center 2400 Before ERIC B. CHEN, ADAM J. PYONIN, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2016-001738 Application 13/611,998 This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 13—26. Claims 1—12 and 27—34 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention relates to a communication system that includes a host device that uses a first format; an intermediate device; a user device that uses a second format; and a network in communication with the host device, the intermediate device, and the user device. (Abstract.) Claim 13 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics: 13. A system comprising: a host device; an intermediate device; a user device; and a network in communication with the host device, the intermediate device and the user device; said host separately communicating a first video signal and an on-screen display signal to the intermediate device; said intermediate device compositing the first video signal and the on-screen display signal to form a composite video signal; said intermediate device encoding the composite video signal in a format corresponding to the user device to form an encoded composite video signal and communicating said encoded composite video signal to the user device through the network; said user device decoding the encoded composite video signal for display on a display associated with the user device. Claims 13—26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lejeune (US 2012/0254450 Al; Oct. 4, 2012) and Shapiro (Edmond 2 Appeal 2016-001738 Application 13/611,998 Shapiro, Architecting the Media Gateway for the Cable Home, NDS Technical Paper 1-17 (2011).) Claim 19 stands rejected under 35U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.1 ANALYSIS Claims 13—15, 19-22, and 26 We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 5—9; see also Reply Br. 2-A) that the combination of Lejeune and Shapiro would not have rendered obvious independent claim 13, which includes the limitations “said intermediate device compositing the first video signal and the on-screen display signal to form a composite video signal” and “said intermediate device encoding the composite video signal in a format corresponding to the user device to form an encoded composite video signal and communicating said encoded composite video signal to the user device through the network.” The Examiner found that the User Interface protocol for the fourth tier of Lejeune, as illustrated in Figure 1, which is used to blend the graphics and video content at the client, corresponds to the limitation “separately communicating a first video signal and an on-screen display signal.” (Final Act. 5.) The Examiner further found that the bottom tier of Lejeune, as illustrated in Figure 1, which blends graphics and video content, and the adapter of Lejeune, which performs higher to lower tier translation, 1 Appellants do not present any separate arguments with respect to the rejection of dependent claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112. (App. Br. 5.) Thus, any such arguments are deemed to be waived. 3 Appeal 2016-001738 Application 13/611,998 collectively suggest the limitations “said intermediate device compositing the first video signal and the on-screen display signal to form a composite video signal” and “said intermediate device encoding the composite video signal in a format corresponding to the user device to form an encoded composite video signal and communicating said encoded composite video signal to the user device through the network.” {Id. at 5—6.) We agree with the Examiner. Lejeune relates to a tiered hierarchical Remote User Interface (RUI) (| 1) having “a tiered hierarchical standard with a minimum base RUI profile that is supported by all devices that meet the standard with optional support for the higher level hierarchies within the tier” (Abstract). Figure 1 of Lejeune illustrates a block diagram of exemplary tiers of different graphical and video remote user interfaces. (118.) In reference to Figure 1, Lejeune explains that “[a]t a bottom (base) tier 100, graphics are encapsulated into the video stream, requiring no further protocol on the client beyond UPnP and video decoding but requiring a real time very heavy load on the server to decode video, blend in the graphics and then re-encode the video onto a stream.” (| 24.) With respect to the fourth tier, as illustrated in Figure 1, Lejeune explains that “User Interface protocols are sent as data and presentation files for the clients to interpret within an application framework, generating graphics commands and then ultimately blending and rendering with the video stream by the graphics hardware.” (127.) Because the fourth tier of Lejeune blends graphics and video content received at the client, Lejeune teaches the limitation “separately communicating a first video signal and an on-screen display signal.” Similarly, because the base tier of Lejeune blends graphics and video 4 Appeal 2016-001738 Application 13/611,998 content, Lejeune teaches the limitations “compositing the first video signal and the on-screen display signal to form a composite video signal” and “encoding the composite video signal in a format corresponding to the user device to form an encoded composite video signal and communicating said encoded composite video signal to the user device through the network.” Moreover, Lejeune explains that “[tjhere are . . . cases when both servers and clients are required to be very light weight, for instance in cost sensitive devices or multiple client rendering” and “an external networked partial rendering adapter is able to be used to perform higher to lower tier translation.” (| 32.) Thus, Lejeune teaches the limitation “intermediate device.” Because Lejeune explains one embodiment in which the adapter performs higher (e.g., fourth tier) to lower tier (e.g., base tier) translation, we agree with the Examiner that Lejeune teaches the limitations “said intermediate device compositing the first video signal and the on-screen display signal to form a composite video signal” and “said intermediate device encoding the composite video signal in a format corresponding to the user device to form an encoded composite video signal and communicating said encoded composite video signal to the user device through the network.” First, Appellants argue the following: Lejeune is silent as to the partial rendering adapter receiving a video signal and a separate on-screen display signal. Lejeune is also silent as to the partial rendering adapter compositing such a video signal and an on-screen display signal to form a composite video signal. Lejeune is also silent as to the partial rendering adapter encoding that composite video signal in a format corresponding to a user device to form an encoded composite 5 Appeal 2016-001738 Application 13/611,998 video signal and communicating the encoded composite video signal to the user device through a network. (App. Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 2—3.) Similarly, Appellants argue that “the Examiner has merely alleged that the partial rendering adapter of Lejeune does or would have performed various features of claim 13 without any support.” (App. Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 3.) Contrary to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner collectively cited to both the base tier of Lejeune, as illustrated in Figure 1, and the adapter of Lejeune, as described in paragraph 32, rather than solely the adapter of Lejeune, for teaching the limitations “said intermediate device compositing the first video signal and the on-screen display signal to form a composite video signal” and “said intermediate device encoding the composite video signal in a format corresponding to the user device to form an encoded composite video signal and communicating said encoded composite video signal to the user device through the network.” Second, Appellants argue that [t]he U.S. Publication [US 2012/0254453 Al, incorporated by reference in paragraph 32 of Lejeune] is silent as to: an intermediate device compositing the first video signal and the on screen display signal to form a composite video signal; and the intermediate device encoding the composite video signal in a format corresponding to the user device to form an encoded composite video signal and communicating the encoded composite video signal to the user device through the network. (App. Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 4.) However, as discussed previously, the Examiner collectively cited to both the base tier of Lejeune, as illustrated in Figure 1, and the adapter of Lejeune, as described in paragraph 32. Appellants have not provided sufficient persuasive arguments or evidence as to why the Examiner’s citation to the base tier and the adapter of Lejeune is 6 Appeal 2016-001738 Application 13/611,998 improper; nor have Appellants persuaded us the adapter, as described in Lejeune, fails to provide the particular teachings or suggestions as found by the Examiner. Last, Appellants argue the following: Shapiro is silent as to: an intermediate device (e.g., an external processor or a consumer’s personal computer) compositing the first video signal and the on-screen display signal to form a composite video signal. Shapiro is also silent as to such an intermediate device (e.g., an external processor or a consumer’s personal computer) encoding the composite video signal in a format corresponding to the user device to form an encoded composite video signal and communicating said encoded composite video signal to a user device through a network. (App. Br. 9.) Contrary to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner cited to the base tier of Lejeune and the adapter of Lejeune collectively, rather than Shapiro, for teaching the limitations “said intermediate device compositing the first video signal and the on-screen display signal to form a composite video signal” and “said intermediate device encoding the composite video signal in a format corresponding to the user device to form an encoded composite video signal and communicating said encoded composite video signal to the user device through the network.” Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Lejeune and Shapiro would have rendered obvious independent claim 13, which includes the limitations “said intermediate device compositing the first video signal and the on-screen display signal to form a composite video signal” and “said intermediate device encoding the composite video signal in a format corresponding to the user device to form an encoded composite video signal and communicating said encoded composite video signal to the user device through the network.” 7 Appeal 2016-001738 Application 13/611,998 Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 14, 15, 19, and 20 depend from claim 13, and Appellants have not presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 14, 15, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 13. Independent claim 21 recites limitations similar to those discussed with respect to independent claim 13, and Appellants have not presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims. We sustain the rejection of claim 21, as well as dependent claims 22 and 26, for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 13. Claims 16 and 23 Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent claims 16 and 23 separately (App. Br. 10), the arguments presented do not point out with particularity or explain why the limitations of these dependent claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellants merely argue that “with respect to claim 16, Lejeune and Shapiro are also silent as to the intermediate device changing the on-screen display signal in response to a user device identifier signal” and “[cjlaim 23 includes limitations similar to those of claim 16.” (Id.) Accordingly, Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments with respect to these claims. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[T]he Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”). We are not persuaded by these 8 Appeal 2016-001738 Application 13/611,998 arguments for the reasons discussed with respect to claims 13 and 21, from which claims 16 and 23 depend. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection. Claims 17 and 24 Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent claims 17 and 24 separately (App. Br. 11), the arguments presented do not point out with particularity or explain why the limitations of these dependent claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellants merely argue that “[wjith respect to claim 17, Lejeune and Shapiro are also silent as to the intermediate device comprising a decoder decoding the first video signal to form an intermediate signal and an encoder encoding the intermediate signal to form the encoded composite video signal” and “[cjlaim 24 includes limitations similar to those of claim 17.” (Id.) Accordingly, Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments with respect to these claims. See Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357. We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons discussed with respect to claims 13 and 21, from which claims 17 and 24 depend. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection. Claims 18 and 25 Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent claims 18 and 25 separately (App. Br. 11), the arguments presented do not point out with particularity or explain why the limitations of these dependent claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellants merely argue that [wjith respect to claim 18, Lejeune and Shapiro are also silent as to the intermediate device comprising a decoder decoding the first video signal to form an intermediate signal, compositing the on-screen display signal with the intermediate signal to create a 9 Appeal 2016-001738 Application 13/611,998 blended intermediate signal, and an encoder encoding the blended intermediate signal to form the encoded composite video signal and “[cjlaim 25 includes limitations similar to those of claim 18.” (Id.) Accordingly, Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments with respect to these claims. See Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357. We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons discussed with respect to claims 13 and 21, from which claims 18 and 25 depend. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 13—26 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 10 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation